![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Ann Somerville Tweeted me a link that amused me muchly
It's a rather long, dry interview of a Mr. Philip Roth (no idea who that is, for the record), most of which I didn't read and didn't care about. No, the killer line was:
What do popular writers such as James Patterson and Nora Roberts have that attracts such huge numbers of readers?
I don't know their books. They are entertainers. They aren't writers
We'll leave, for a moment, the grossly ridiculous idea of judging their work while at the same time you don't know their books. Srsly? Judging a book without even seeing the cover! Bravo
No no, I am much more amused by the "They are entertainers. They aren't writers."
They write books. Isn't this the definition of a writer? And is there a reason why an entertainer is not a writer?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I rather suspect 90%+ of all fiction writers out there are entertainers. I'm sure 99.9% of all fiction readers out there read to be entertained. In fact, I will even go as far to say that entertainment is 80% of the POINT of fiction. I'm pretty certain when William Shakespeare, the Brontes, Chaucer, Jane Austen and even Charles Dickings put pen to paper they did so to entertain (though if you are entertained by a Dickens novel there's something wrong with you).
Can fiction do other things? Sure it can educate, it can move, it can inspire, it can inform, it can be uplifting and it can be deeply depressing. But ultimately, it's a diversion, it's leisure it's *gasp* entertainment! It reminds me of those awfully pretentious people who inist that true LITERATURE has to be dreadfully dreadfully dull (like Dickens) and reading it must be WORK (*cough*Dickens*cough*)
Am I horribly crass and shallow here? I mean my shelves are full of books that I own purely for my own amusement. I will even, *gasp* STOP READING A BOOK THAT FAILS TO ENTERTAIN ME! Am I terribly common and crude for such terrible tastes?
It's a rather long, dry interview of a Mr. Philip Roth (no idea who that is, for the record), most of which I didn't read and didn't care about. No, the killer line was:
What do popular writers such as James Patterson and Nora Roberts have that attracts such huge numbers of readers?
I don't know their books. They are entertainers. They aren't writers
We'll leave, for a moment, the grossly ridiculous idea of judging their work while at the same time you don't know their books. Srsly? Judging a book without even seeing the cover! Bravo
No no, I am much more amused by the "They are entertainers. They aren't writers."
They write books. Isn't this the definition of a writer? And is there a reason why an entertainer is not a writer?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I rather suspect 90%+ of all fiction writers out there are entertainers. I'm sure 99.9% of all fiction readers out there read to be entertained. In fact, I will even go as far to say that entertainment is 80% of the POINT of fiction. I'm pretty certain when William Shakespeare, the Brontes, Chaucer, Jane Austen and even Charles Dickings put pen to paper they did so to entertain (though if you are entertained by a Dickens novel there's something wrong with you).
Can fiction do other things? Sure it can educate, it can move, it can inspire, it can inform, it can be uplifting and it can be deeply depressing. But ultimately, it's a diversion, it's leisure it's *gasp* entertainment! It reminds me of those awfully pretentious people who inist that true LITERATURE has to be dreadfully dreadfully dull (like Dickens) and reading it must be WORK (*cough*Dickens*cough*)
Am I horribly crass and shallow here? I mean my shelves are full of books that I own purely for my own amusement. I will even, *gasp* STOP READING A BOOK THAT FAILS TO ENTERTAIN ME! Am I terribly common and crude for such terrible tastes?